On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
<artag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> To be in sync with remote-bzr.
> Huh?  Why do you have to be in sync with remote-bzr?  Are you sharing
> code between remote-hg and remote-bzr?

We don't have to.

>> @@ -830,7 +831,7 @@ def main(args):
>>      if alias[4:] == url:
>>          is_tmp = True
>> -        alias = util.sha1(alias).hexdigest()
>> +        alias = hashlib.sha1(alias).hexdigest()
> Did you eve bother justifying this change with a line in the commit
> message?  How is the new form different from the old form?

Why would it be any difference? It's a hex version of the SHA-1
digest. It would be the same in every language and every tool.

And a bit of context: historically the reason I started remote-bzr was
to show that we didn't need the *huge* infrastructure that is sitting
git_remote_helpers, which is nothing compared to what was prepared to
be merged for msysgit's remote-hg. I wrote it as a proof-of-concept to
show we didn't need a framework, and if we do, it would only be clear
after having _two_ remote helpers, which we now do. It might make
sense to refactor the common parts into a framework later on, so
having them in sync as much as it's reasonably possible makes sense.

But if even if it wasn't, there's nothing wrong with this patch. Also,
who knows, maybe old versions of mercurial don't have util.sha1(), or
maybe newer ones will move it, who knows.


Felipe Contreras
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to